Regime Change vs Humanitarian Intervention

[S.A.M.]

...is there a difference in principle between, say, President Clinton's "humanitarian intervention" in Bosnia and President Bush's "regime change" in Iraq? A classic Realist would argue (and some did) that there is no meaningful difference and no good reason to intervene militarily in either case.

It may be hard to devise an ideological argument for embracing one type of intervention and protesting the other. But it is not so hard to make distinctions on practical grounds. It's reasonable to base a foreign policy chiefly on traditional concepts of national interest—and still sometimes go out of the way, maybe go to war, in order to help a ravaged people or oust a monstrous tyrant, even when those interests are not directly at stake.

One tangible litmus test for getting involved in such "wars of choice" is whether other powers or international bodies endorse and join the fight. This is not to make a moral pitch for multilateralism, but it is to make a pragmatic case. The purpose behind wars of choice is to enforce international norms.

-excerpt from Fred Kaplan's Daydream Believers

Discuss

 

[Letticia]

Which make Clinton's interventions in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia (ok, that one he inherited from Bush Sr.) particularly bizarre. No American interests were involved in any of them.

 

[Norsefire]

If Bush forces democracy on the Iraqi people, then that goes against the whole point of "freedom".

Nations that I believe seriously need some sort of revolution would be:

1)North Korea- worst country in the world, no doubt.

However, only do so if the citizens want a change. If not, you are simply an aggresor.

 

[S.A.M.]

I am not in favor of a militaristic regime liberating anyone. South Koreans do not differentiate between North and South Korea.

 

[Challenger78]

Humanitarian intervention may be sometimes necessary, otherwise we would fall into apathy and selfishness. However, Humanitarian intervention must only occur when large numbers of native lives are at stake. Iraq was not a humanitarian intervention, neither are the several countries in Latin America.

Darfur would be a humanitarian intervention as well. Because large numbers of innocents are dying.

Regime change is just screwing around with the people with the country, so that you can get a "democratic" leader that you like.

 

[Bells]

I am not in favor of a militaristic regime liberating anyone. South Koreans do not differentiate between North and South Korea.

It depends on the regime or the situation at hand. For example, military intervention and forcing a regime change would have prevented the genocide in countries like Rwanda and in recent times, in Sudan. But nothing was or is being done, even though a humanitarian crisis had occurred and continues to occur.

For example, in Rwanda today, President Kagame was involved in allowing killings of Hutu's for retribution of the ethnic cleansing of the Tutsi's. It has become apparent that he was quite willing to allow his own people to die because he viewed it as being an ends to justify his means of over throwing the interim Government that was doing the killings at the time. At present, 40 of his own people are now about to face the ICC for human rights abuses and taking part in their own genocide during and after the genocide of Tutsi's. He, it seems, has diplomatic immunity because he is the President. Had there been a military intervention in Rwanda, there would not have had to have been well over 1 million people die (when one considers the 800,000 who died in the initial 100 days and then the hundreds of others who died in its aftermath in Goma and other refugee camps and also those who died at the hands of returning Tutsi and the members of the RPF who wanted revenge). Rwanda was a situation that could have been nipped in the bud, but it was not.

The same applies to Sudan. We have sat back and watched the slaughter of thousands, upon thousands of people and we have ummed and ahhed about whether to intervene or not.

There are instances where external military intervention is absolutely necessary. I personally believe we should have intervened when Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons to kill not only his own people, but also the Kurds and the Iranians. But we did nothing. Instead we supplied him with the means to continue. Our intervention in Iraq came too late and at the wrong time.

I'll be blunt. I am a firm believer in military intervention where human rights abuses are taking place and the sitting Government does nothing to stop it and/or participates in any capacity in such abuses.

 

[Challenger78]

You know bells, the US could supplied those very weapons. the US also encouraged the Kurds to rebel and did nothing while saddam's choppers (which they allowed to fly) chopped them to bits.

 

[Bells]

You know bells, the US could supplied those very weapons. the US also encouraged the Kurds to rebel and did nothing while saddam's choppers (which they allowed to fly) chopped them to bits.

Yep. Disgusting, isn't it? I suspect they did not want to remove him after all, since they would not have known who would have taken over. That was when they should have intervened. Hell, even before then. But they did nothing. They risked their own people who were helping the Kurds and in the end, the Kurds payed for their change of minds with their lives.

 

[Challenger78]

Yep. Disgusting, isn't it? I suspect they did not want to remove him after all, since they would not have known who would have taken over. That was when they should have intervened. Hell, even before then. But they did nothing. They risked their own people who were helping the Kurds and in the end, the Kurds payed for their change of minds with their lives.

Yeah, meanwhile, I'll just remain apathetic and uncaring safe in my little corner of Australia.

People have nothing to put their faith in. Not in each other, not in politicians or the government.

My generation will possibly be the most apathetic and selfish of all time..

 

[ashura]

I'll be blunt. I am a firm believer in military intervention where human rights abuses are taking place and the sitting Government does nothing to stop it and/or participates in any capacity in such abuses.

In your belief, should the sitting government be overthrown or replaced? How would you prevent such abuses from recurring? Would you keep your intervening troops there indefinitely?

 

[S.A.M.]

It depends on the regime or the situation at hand. For example, military intervention and forcing a regime change would have prevented the genocide in countries like Rwanda and in recent times, in Sudan. But nothing was or is being done, even though a humanitarian crisis had occurred and continues to occur.

I still don't agree with a militaristic regime liberating anyone. Any such decision has to come from a nonpartisan non-militant organisation.

 

[James R]

...is there a difference in principle between, say, President Clinton's "humanitarian intervention" in Bosnia and President Bush's "regime change" in Iraq?

There's an important difference.

The former type of intervention is sanctioned by international human rights law. The latter is not.

The US invasion of Iraq (as opposed to Afganistan) was a case of the US going it alone (well, with British support), without legal justification in international law. That is not to say that no legal justification for toppling Saddam could possibly have been made.

If the US had invaded Iraq with UN approval to remove Saddam for human rights abuses, its actions may well have been legally defensible. However, to go it alone, without UN sanction, on the pretext of Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs was questionable, to say the least.

One tangible litmus test for getting involved in such "wars of choice" is whether other powers or international bodies endorse and join the fight. This is not to make a moral pitch for multilateralism, but it is to make a pragmatic case. The purpose behind wars of choice is to enforce international norms.

True. Under international law, wars of aggression are illegal. However, a good case can be made for enforcement actions to prevent the commission or furtherance of crimes against humanity by state actors.

 

[ashura]

James R: I understand your position is that militaristic intervention can be legal, but do you consider it to be right?

 

[James R]

ashura:

That really depends on the circumstances. I guess you need to weigh up what you hope to achieve (e.g. by removing a tyrant from power and bringing him to trial before an international tribunal such as the ICC) against the human cost involved.

 

[Asguard]

in suport of what james has said lets take 2 examples of what the Australian millatry has been involved in recently, Timor and Iraq. In Timor firstly we were asked to come in, begged actually because of the slaughter going on and we went in and inforced order while the millisa backed by Indonesia trying to slaughter everyone voting for inderpendance. This i belive was a good action (although not the theft of there gas reserves Bloody Howard). Iraq however is NOT like that, the goverment of iraq wasnt nice but it WAS stable and we recked the country by our actions. Now as james said a case COULD have been made for taking out sadam because of his ACTIONS but that wasnt made. There was no debate on that or the possable conciquences of doing that

Look at the Solomon Islands (ok we are having a pissing match with them at the moment). That action was taken by everyone in the region and it wasnt just millarty it was public servants as well. We rebuilt there whole goverment from the ground up because it was taring itself apart. So we secured it, sent in police to inforce THERE laws and then we sent in public servants to teach them how to run departments, write laws ect. This IS a good thing (pitty there attorny general is an ALEGED sexual preditor though for crimes comited in Australia though)

 

[Challenger78]

There's an important difference.

The former type of intervention is sanctioned by international human rights law. The latter is not.

The US invasion of Iraq (as opposed to Afganistan) was a case of the US going it alone (well, with British support), without legal justification in international law. That is not to say that no legal justification for toppling Saddam could possibly have been made.

Hey, don't forget, Australia sat there and supported the US too.

Indeed. East Timor and Solomon Islands are cases of humanitarian intervention.

However, The use of military force should be kept to a minimum as to ensure that we are not seen as occupiers, or promoters of a particular sect/clan.
I.E don't go into another country for regime change.

 

[iceaura]

No government military attack of my experience, if investigated, has been "humanitarian" in the motive of the State.

I doubt States ever have humanitarian motives for sending in the military. Certainly the US motives in Kosovo were not humanitarian - Clinton wouldn't have touched off the major Serb atrocities by bombing if they were.

Now humanitarian results overall - those might be more common. I can't think of any off hand, since WWII. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan might have worked out that way, had it succeeded. How about the Indian invasion of Bangladesh ?

Indeed. East Timor and Solomon Islands are cases of humanitarian intervention.

By whom ?

 

[James R]

By a UN force composed mostly of Australian soldiers.

 

[Bells]

I still don't agree with a militaristic regime liberating anyone. Any such decision has to come from a nonpartisan non-militant organisation.

It usually does. Most NGO's on the ground are usually the one's who will first alert the world and the UN of any human rights abuses taking place and when they start begging for action, something must be seriously wrong.

 

[iceaura]

By a UN force composed mostly of Australian soldiers.

Two points: it was months - maybe years - late, and it wasn't a "State" intervention.

But yeah, that's maybe close to a humanitarian military intervention. Although Australia does seem to have snuck a few State objectives in there.

And it did have humanitarian consequences, as even some State operations may, possibly. I thought of one, besides India and Bangladesh: Vietnam's deposing of the Pol Pot hell regime.